IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v163y2020i3d10.1007_s10584-018-2226-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Nico Bauer

    (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Leibniz Association)

  • Steven K. Rose

    (Electric Power Research Institute)

  • Shinichiro Fujimori

    (Kyoto University
    National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES))

  • Detlef P. Vuuren

    (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)
    Utrecht University)

  • John Weyant

    (Stanford University)

  • Marshall Wise

    (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL))

  • Yiyun Cui

    (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL))

  • Vassilis Daioglou

    (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL))

  • Matthew J. Gidden

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA))

  • Etsushi Kato

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA))

  • Alban Kitous

    (Joint Research Center (JRC))

  • Florian Leblanc

    (Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement)

  • Ronald Sands

    (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service)

  • Fuminori Sano

    (Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE))

  • Jessica Strefler

    (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Leibniz Association)

  • Junichi Tsutsui

    (Environmental Science Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI))

  • Ruben Bibas

    (Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement)

  • Oliver Fricko

    (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA))

  • Tomoko Hasegawa

    (National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES))

  • David Klein

    (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Leibniz Association)

  • Atsushi Kurosawa

    (The Institute of Applied Energy)

  • Silvana Mima

    (University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, INRA, Grenoble INP)

  • Matteo Muratori

    (National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL))

Abstract

We present an overview of results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on the viability of large-scale deployment of bioenergy for achieving long-run climate goals. The study explores future bioenergy use across models under harmonized scenarios for future climate policies, availability of bioenergy technologies, and constraints on biomass supply. This paper provides a more transparent description of IAMs that span a broad range of assumptions regarding model structures, energy sectors, and bioenergy conversion chains. Without emission constraints, we find vastly different CO2 emission and bioenergy deployment patterns across models due to differences in competition with fossil fuels, the possibility to produce large-scale bio-liquids, and the flexibility of energy systems. Imposing increasingly stringent carbon budgets mostly increases bioenergy use. A diverse set of available bioenergy technology portfolios provides flexibility to allocate bioenergy to supply different final energy as well as remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by combining bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Sector and regional bioenergy allocation varies dramatically across models mainly due to bioenergy technology availability and costs, final energy patterns, and availability of alternative decarbonization options. Although much bioenergy is used in combination with CCS, BECCS is not necessarily the driver of bioenergy use. We find that the flexibility to use biomass feedstocks in different energy sub-sectors makes large-scale bioenergy deployment a robust strategy in mitigation scenarios that is surprisingly insensitive with respect to reduced technology availability. However, the achievability of stringent carbon budgets and associated carbon prices is sensitive. Constraints on biomass feedstock supply increase the carbon price less significantly than excluding BECCS because carbon removals are still realized and valued. Incremental sensitivity tests find that delayed readiness of bioenergy technologies until 2050 is more important than potentially higher investment costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Nico Bauer & Steven K. Rose & Shinichiro Fujimori & Detlef P. Vuuren & John Weyant & Marshall Wise & Yiyun Cui & Vassilis Daioglou & Matthew J. Gidden & Etsushi Kato & Alban Kitous & Florian Leblanc &, 2020. "Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1553-1568, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:163:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2226-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-018-2226-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sands, Ronald D. & Malcolm, Scott A. & Suttles, Shellye A. & Marshall, Elizabeth, 2017. "Dedicated Energy Crops and Competition for Agricultural Land," Economic Research Report 252445, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Henri Waisman & Céline Guivarch & Fabio Grazi & Jean Hourcade, 2012. "The I maclim-R model: infrastructures, technical inertia and the costs of low carbon futures under imperfect foresight," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 101-120, September.
    3. Holly Jean Buck, 2016. "Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 155-167, November.
    4. Barbara Koelbl & Machteld Broek & André Faaij & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 461-476, April.
    5. Lomax, Guy & Workman, Mark & Lenton, Timothy & Shah, Nilay, 2015. "Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 125-136.
    6. Elmar Kriegler & John Weyant & Geoffrey Blanford & Volker Krey & Leon Clarke & Jae Edmonds & Allen Fawcett & Gunnar Luderer & Keywan Riahi & Richard Richels & Steven Rose & Massimo Tavoni & Detlef Vuu, 2014. "The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 353-367, April.
    7. Kimon Keramidas & Alban Kitous & Jacques Despres & Andreas Schmitz & Ana Diaz Vazquez & Silvana Mima & Peter Russ & Tobias Wiesenthal, 2017. "POLES-JRC model documentation," JRC Research Reports JRC107387, Joint Research Centre.
    8. Sano, Fuminori & Wada, Kenichi & Akimoto, Keigo & Oda, Junichiro, 2015. "Assessments of GHG emission reduction scenarios of different levels and different short-term pledges through macro- and sectoral decomposition analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 153-165.
    9. Steven Rose & Elmar Kriegler & Ruben Bibas & Katherine Calvin & Alexander Popp & Detlef Vuuren & John Weyant, 2014. "Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 477-493, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guivarch, Céline & Monjon, Stéphanie, 2017. "Identifying the main uncertainty drivers of energy security in a low-carbon world: The case of Europe," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 530-541.
    2. P. A. Turner & C. B. Field & D. B. Lobell & D. L. Sanchez & K. J. Mach, 2018. "Unprecedented rates of land-use transformation in modelled climate change mitigation pathways," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(5), pages 240-245, May.
    3. Florian Leblanc & Ruben Bibas & Silvana Mima & Matteo Muratori & Shogo Sakamoto & Fuminori Sano & Nico Bauer & Vassilis Daioglou & Shinichiro Fujimori & Matthew J. Gidden & Estsushi Kato & Steven K. R, 2022. "The contribution of bioenergy to the decarbonization of transport: a multi-model assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Vassilis Daioglou & Steven K. Rose & Nico Bauer & Alban Kitous & Matteo Muratori & Fuminori Sano & Shinichiro Fujimori & Matthew J. Gidden & Etsushi Kato & Kimon Keramidas & David Klein & Florian Lebl, 2020. "Bioenergy technologies in long-run climate change mitigation: results from the EMF-33 study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1603-1620, December.
    5. Guivarch, Celine & Monjon, Stéphanie, 2016. "Energy security in a low-carbon world: Identifying the main uncertain drivers of energy security in Europe," Conference papers 332807, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    6. van der Zwaan, Bob & Kober, Tom & Calderon, Silvia & Clarke, Leon & Daenzer, Katie & Kitous, Alban & Labriet, Maryse & Lucena, André F.P. & Octaviano, Claudia & Di Sbroiavacca, Nicolas, 2016. "Energy technology roll-out for climate change mitigation: A multi-model study for Latin America," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 526-542.
    7. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    8. Shinichiro Fujimori & Tomoko Hasegawa & Volker Krey & Keywan Riahi & Christoph Bertram & Benjamin Leon Bodirsky & Valentina Bosetti & Jessica Callen & Jacques Després & Jonathan Doelman & Laurent Drou, 2019. "A multi-model assessment of food security implications of climate change mitigation," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(5), pages 386-396, May.
    9. Tomoko Hasegawa & Ronald D. Sands & Thierry Brunelle & Yiyun Cui & Stefan Frank & Shinichiro Fujimori & Alexander Popp, 2020. "Food security under high bioenergy demand toward long-term climate goals," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1587-1601, December.
    10. Ruth Delzeit & Robert Beach & Ruben Bibas & Wolfgang Britz & Jean Chateau & Florian Freund & Julien Lefevre & Franziska Schuenemann & Timothy Sulser & Hugo Valin & Bas van Ruijven & Matthias Weitzel &, 2020. "Linking Global CGE Models with Sectoral Models to Generate Baseline Scenarios: Approaches, Challenges, and Opportunities," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 162-195, June.
    11. Wil Burns & Simon Nicholson, 2017. "Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 527-534, December.
    12. Misconel, S. & Leisen, R. & Mikurda, J. & Zimmermann, F. & Fraunholz, C. & Fichtner, W. & Möst, D. & Weber, C., 2022. "Systematic comparison of high-resolution electricity system modeling approaches focusing on investment, dispatch and generation adequacy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    13. Matthias Weitzel, 2017. "The role of uncertainty in future costs of key CO2 abatement technologies: a sensitivity analysis with a global computable general equilibrium model," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 153-173, January.
    14. Ajay Gambhir & Laurent Drouet & David McCollum & Tamaryn Napp & Dan Bernie & Adam Hawkes & Oliver Fricko & Petr Havlik & Keywan Riahi & Valentina Bosetti & Jason Lowe, 2017. "Assessing the Feasibility of Global Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, January.
    15. Hang Deng & Jeffrey M. Bielicki & Michael Oppenheimer & Jeffrey P. Fitts & Catherine A. Peters, 2017. "Leakage risks of geologic CO2 storage and the impacts on the global energy system and climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 151-163, September.
    16. Jagu Schippers, Emma & Massol, Olivier, 2022. "Unlocking CO2 infrastructure deployment: The impact of carbon removal accounting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    17. Rob Dellink & Dominique Van der Mensbrugghe & Bert Saveyn, 2020. "Shaping Baseline Scenarios of Economic Activity with CGE Models: Introduction to the Special Issue," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 1-27, June.
    18. P. A. Turner & K. J. Mach & D. B. Lobell & S. M. Benson & E. Baik & D. L. Sanchez & C. B. Field, 2018. "The global overlap of bioenergy and carbon sequestration potential," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 1-10, May.
    19. Luderer, Gunnar & Pietzcker, Robert C. & Carrara, Samuel & de Boer, Harmen Sytze & Fujimori, Shinichiro & Johnson, Nils & Mima, Silvana & Arent, Douglas, 2017. "Assessment of wind and solar power in global low-carbon energy scenarios: An introduction," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 542-551.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:163:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2226-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.